Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to introduce legislation to encourage family and work and to facilitate the purchase of affordable health insurance by self-employed individuals. It is no secret to many married Americans that the tax code often penalizes marriage. An estimated 21 million American couples with two breadwinners pay more than if they had remained single and filed separate tax returns--an average of nearly $1,400 more. The marriage penalty is justifiably one of the most unpopular aspects of our tax system, second only to the complexity of the tax code. The federal government should be encouraging family and work, not discouraging them through disincentives in the tax code or any other area of public policy. The bill I am introducing today would significantly reduce the added tax burden that many middle and lower income couples face when both spouses work. It will do so by providing an above-the-line 20 percent deduction against the earnings of the lesser earning spouse. The 20 percent deduction would be phased out between family adjusted gross incomes of $50,000 and $60,000. It would also be applied against the calculation of earned income for the purpose of determining eligibility for the Earned Income Credit, increasing the size of these refundable credits for a large number of families with incomes between $10,000 and $30,000. Finally, the bill would accelerate the date at which health insurance costs incurred by the self-employed become fully deductible. This is necessary to place farmers and small businessmen and women on the same footing as large, established companies when they purchase health insurance. Congress has wrestled with the marriage penalty problem several times during the past century in an attempt to reconcile two goals that cannot always be satisfied simultaneously in the context of a progressive tax system. The first is to ensure that a couple's total tax is the same, irrespective of the breakdown of earnings between spouses. The second is to ensure that couples will be taxed the same irrespective of whether they are married or still single. Before 1969, the tax code treated married couples as if they were composed of two single individuals. This avoided penalties on marriage, but it created higher rates on single taxpayers than married couples in cases in which one spouse earned all or most of the couple's income. Joint returns were computed by applying the normal rates to one-half of the couple's aggregate taxable income and multiplying the resulting amount by two. Single taxpayers' returns were computed by applying the normal rates to the full taxable income, causing a greater amount of the income to be taxed at a higher marginal rate. When Congress acted in 1969 to redress the perceived inequity to single taxpayers, it created the modern-day marriage penalty by causing some married couples who file a joint return to pay more tax than would two single persons with the same total income. Congress based its action on the assumption that a married couple's expenses are lower than those of two single persons having separate households. The time has come to reexamine this tradeoff, which was made nearly thirty years ago. Doing so, however, will require us to confront hard budgetary realities. Complete elimination of the marriage penalty without also eliminating the marriage bonus would cost an estimated $29 billion per year, a sum that is far in excess of what can be afforded while maintaining our commitment to a balanced budget and the use of budget surpluses for Social Security reform. While the drive to pay down the national debt and save Social Security will make comprehensive reform of the marriage penalty difficult any time soon, more targeted efforts are not only possible, they are the right thing to do. We have an historic opportunity to redress the unjustified added tax burden we place on some married couples without undermining our commitment to pass an effective national tobacco policy and enact reforms to save Social Security. My bill would sharply reduce the marriage tax penalty for most couples with incomes of less than $60,000 at a fraction of the budgetary cost of other marriage penalty tax proposals, such as that offered by Senator Gramm of Texas to increase deductions for all married couples. The reason is that these other proposals fail to distinguish between couples who incur a penalty and those who enjoy a marriage bonus. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that about 29 million families, those in which one spouse earns much more than the other, currently pay less than if they had filed single returns--an average of $1,300 less. Senator Gramm's proposal and others like it dilute the amount of tax relief they are able to deliver to penalized couples by providing just as much of a tax cut to couples who receive a bonus. By targeting its tax relief more directly on the couples who experience a marriage penalty, my bill would reduce this penalty far more for most families with incomes below $60,000 than competing approaches. For Example, in the case of a couple making $35,000, split $20,000 and $15,000 between the two spouses, my proposal would provide an additional tax deduction of $3,000 (i.e., 15% of $15,000). This is over twice as much marriage penalty tax relief as could be provided at a comparable cost by a proposal to increase the deduction for all joint filers. Similarly, for a couple making $50,000 divided evenly between the two spouses, my bill would provide a $5,000 deduction (20% of $25,000), representing more than three times as much tax as a proposal that costs the same but extends a supplemental deduction to all married couples. We simply do not have the luxury of applying tax relief indiscriminately if we are to make good on our other commitments, whether they be passage of an effective tobacco bill that reduces youth smoking or preservation of budget surpluses for the difficult task of shoring up the financing of the Social Security system. The legislation I introduce today is aimed at demonstrating that we can reconcile our competing priorities. We can do right by married couples incurring a tax penalty and farmers and small businesses who must purchase their own health insurance at the same that we do right by our children and our growing population of seniors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to introduce legislation to encourage family and work and to facilitate the purchase of affordable health insurance by self-employed individuals. It is no secret to many married Americans that the tax code often penalizes marriage. An estimated 21 million American couples with two breadwinners pay more than if they had remained single and filed separate tax returns--an average of nearly $1,400 more. The marriage penalty is justifiably one of the most unpopular aspects of our tax system, second only to the complexity of the tax code. The federal government should be encouraging family and work, not discouraging them through disincentives in the tax code or any other area of public policy. The bill I am introducing today would significantly reduce the added tax burden that many middle and lower income couples face when both spouses work. It will do so by providing an above-the-line 20 percent deduction against the earnings of the lesser earning spouse. The 20 percent deduction would be phased out between family adjusted gross incomes of $50,000 and $60,000. It would also be applied against the calculation of earned income for the purpose of determining eligibility for the Earned Income Credit, increasing the size of these refundable credits for a large number of families with incomes between $10,000 and $30,000. Finally, the bill would accelerate the date at which health insurance costs incurred by the self-employed become fully deductible. This is necessary to place farmers and small businessmen and women on the same footing as large, established companies when they purchase health insurance. Congress has wrestled with the marriage penalty problem several times during the past century in an attempt to reconcile two goals that cannot always be satisfied simultaneously in the context of a progressive tax system. The first is to ensure that a couple's total tax is the same, irrespective of the breakdown of earnings between spouses. The second is to ensure that couples will be taxed the same irrespective of whether they are married or still single. Before 1969, the tax code treated married couples as if they were composed of two single individuals. This avoided penalties on marriage, but it created higher rates on single taxpayers than married couples in cases in which one spouse earned all or most of the couple's income. Joint returns were computed by applying the normal rates to one-half of the couple's aggregate taxable income and multiplying the resulting amount by two. Single taxpayers' returns were computed by applying the normal rates to the full taxable income, causing a greater amount of the income to be taxed at a higher marginal rate. When Congress acted in 1969 to redress the perceived inequity to single taxpayers, it created the modern-day marriage penalty by causing some married couples who file a joint return to pay more tax than would two single persons with the same total income. Congress based its action on the assumption that a married couple's expenses are lower than those of two single persons having separate households. The time has come to reexamine this tradeoff, which was made nearly thirty years ago. Doing so, however, will require us to confront hard budgetary realities. Complete elimination of the marriage penalty without also eliminating the marriage bonus would cost an estimated $29 billion per year, a sum that is far in excess of what can be afforded while maintaining our commitment to a balanced budget and the use of budget surpluses for Social Security reform. While the drive to pay down the national debt and save Social Security will make comprehensive reform of the marriage penalty difficult any time soon, more targeted efforts are not only possible, they are the right thing to do. We have an historic opportunity to redress the unjustified added tax burden we place on some married couples without undermining our commitment to pass an effective national tobacco policy and enact reforms to save Social Security. My bill would sharply reduce the marriage tax penalty for most couples with incomes of less than $60,000 at a fraction of the budgetary cost of other marriage penalty tax proposals, such as that offered by Senator Gramm of Texas to increase deductions for all married couples. The reason is that these other proposals fail to distinguish between couples who incur a penalty and those who enjoy a marriage bonus. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that about 29 million families, those in which one spouse earns much more than the other, currently pay less than if they had filed single returns--an average of $1,300 less. Senator Gramm's proposal and others like it dilute the amount of tax relief they are able to deliver to penalized couples by providing just as much of a tax cut to couples who receive a bonus. By targeting its tax relief more directly on the couples who experience a marriage penalty, my bill would reduce this penalty far more for most families with incomes below $60,000 than competing approaches. For Example, in the case of a couple making $35,000, split $20,000 and $15,000 between the two spouses, my proposal would provide an additional tax deduction of $3,000 (i.e., 15% of $15,000). This is over twice as much marriage penalty tax relief as could be provided at a comparable cost by a proposal to increase the deduction for all joint filers. Similarly, for a couple making $50,000 divided evenly between the two spouses, my bill would provide a $5,000 deduction (20% of $25,000), representing more than three times as much tax as a proposal that costs the same but extends a supplemental deduction to all married couples. We simply do not have the luxury of applying tax relief indiscriminately if we are to make good on our other commitments, whether they be passage of an effective tobacco bill that reduces youth smoking or preservation of budget surpluses for the difficult task of shoring up the financing of the Social Security system. The legislation I introduce today is aimed at demonstrating that we can reconcile our competing priorities. We can do right by married couples incurring a tax penalty and farmers and small businesses who must purchase their own health insurance at the same that we do right by our children and our growing population of seniors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the last several days we have attempted to find a way to get around the impasse we have experienced. I am disappointed that we haven't made more progress, and it was only with the frustration which I had experienced that we were led to file cloture on two occasions last week. Our desire to come to some closure on this bill and on the amendments that are pending could not be greater. We have no reservations and no objections to having a vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, or the amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia, Senator Coverdell. What we would like, however, is the opportunity to offer similar amendments that deal with the same issue at approximately the same time. Let's have an amendment offered by our Republican colleagues. Then let's have an amendment by our Democratic colleagues. Let's go back and forth as we had been doing now for some time. But I really do not think it is the amendments or the procedure relating to the amendments that is keeping us from getting this job done. I think the opponents of the bill will never let a fair process unfold. It is every Senator's right to hold up legislation. That is the prerogative of the U.S. Senate. So we all understand this is a filibuster. The only way to break a filibuster is to invoke cloture. The bill, as everyone knows, is designed really to stop 3,000 kids a day from smoking. That is really what this is all about. Since we have been on this bill, 60,000 kids have become smokers. I think everybody needs to understand what has happened; 60,000 new smokers have begun smoking since we started this legislation, 60,000 of them. About one- third of them will die of smoking-related diseases. So 20,000 of those kids at some point, because they started smoking since we have become involved in this legislation, will die. From votes taken on those issues, it is clear that there is a bipartisan majority for reaching conclusion here. Some of the Senate wants votes on other issues like taxes, drugs, and lawyers. We are prepared, as we have already expressed, to have votes on those issues. Our position is as clear as it can be. Let's have the votes. We voted on lawyers' fees. We have already voted on an array of other issues. Some I voted for, and many I voted against. We are ready to vote on the marriage penalty. We are ready to vote on drug abuse. We are ready to keep voting, just like we started alternating back and forth. We are ready to sit down and work out a way to process the rest of the amendments, and to finish the bill. But we have now spent more time on this bill than any other bill this Congress. The time for talking is over. Now is the time to act. Now is the time to vote. Now is the time to stand up and be counted. How many more thousands of kids will start smoking before we finish? Another 60,000? 600,000? And, if it is, indeed, one-third of those who will die from smoking, how many kids can we prevent from acquiring the habit and from dying? That is what this bill is about. That is why it is so important to come to closure. Cloture Motion

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I now send a cloture motion signed by 16 of my colleagues to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the majority leader has taken the floor to criticize what has occurred this morning. I notified the majority leader last night of our intention to file cloture again. We have been on the bill 42 hours, 39 minutes as of 11:53. Eight days we have been here debating. We have sought some cooperation from our colleagues on the other side in terms of reaching some agreement on how we can proceed on amendments. We have attempted to do that. We were getting nowhere. It was only after we filed cloture last night that we were able to get a vote finally on the Durbin amendment. The majority leader talks about fairness being the criterion by which we judge a Senator's right to offer an amendment. In the name of fairness, we need to offer Senators their opportunity to come to the floor to offer amendments. I wish we would use the same standard. Let's use the same standard for the tobacco bill as we used for the Coverdell bill, as we used for all other bills that we have had before the Senate this year. We were arguing fairness when Senators were denied the opportunity to offer amendments. In fact, somebody said, ``Can you believe they are offering a tax amendment on the Coverdell bill?'' We said, ``Well, this is a tax bill.'' But we were accused of destroying what harmony there may have been to reach some agreement. And Senators on this side of the aisle were precluded from offering amendments on the Coverdell bill even though it was a tax bill, because they said this is an education bill. Do you remember that debate? Because it was ``an education bill,'' we were not supposed to offer tax amendments. But it was a tax bill. Now we have the tobacco legislation, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying we want to offer a tax amendment. We are saying this is a tobacco bill. They say it doesn't matter. We are going to offer this tobacco amendment, and you are not being fair unless you ensure that we have a right to offer tax amendments. I am just asking, let's play fair. Let's use the same standard. That isn't too much to ask. Once we have agreed on what that standard is, let's accommodate Senators on both sides who have amendments they wish to offer. We have a tax amendment. We don't understand why it would be that difficult for us to come to some agreement about having a vote on two competing ideas on the same exact issue. Let's have our debate. Let's lay the amendments down. Let's have a vote back to back on the amendments, and let's move on. We will have an amendment to the amendment that has now been offered by the distinguished Senator from Georgia. We laud him for many of the things that are incorporated in his amendment. There are some concerns that we have. If we can't work through those, we will certainly have an alternative there as well. But it seems to me that we have a double standard here, Mr. President. When it was in circumstances in the past, we had one set of rules. Now, with circumstances with this bill, there is another set of rules. Let's play by the same rules. Let's work together and see if we can't find some resolution of this problem. I think that can be done, but we have a ways to go. I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. That is the case. Those who benefit by being married are benefited even more by the Gramm amendment. The Senator from Mississippi, the majority leader, was saying how important it was that we not overextend the reach here. His admonition to the Senate was, ``Let's take a look, let's step back and make sure we are not just overreaching.'' Well, if there was a definition of overreaching, I don't know that I could find a better example than the Gramm amendment because of exactly what the Senator from North Dakota has noted.

Mr. DASCHLE. While the majority leader is still standing, let me retain the floor and ask him the question. Would he agree with me to a 2- or 3-hour time agreement to be divided equally on the two amendments relating to tax, the Gramm amendment and the Democratic amendment, and that two votes be cast at the end of that time in sequence of his choosing? Would the majority leader agree to that proposal?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just respond to a couple points made by the distinguished majority leader. First of all, I only wish I had had his text in front of me when we took up the Coverdell bill, when we took up a number of other pieces of legislation earlier this year, because I can recall his passionate determination to get time agreements, to stack votes, to find a way to come to closure in a matter of a couple of days, a couple of days, and were it not for the fact that we had the votes to hold off on cloture, I don't know where that would have gone. We finally came to a resolution on the Coverdell legislation because we were able to come to some agreement on how we would proceed on amendments. Now, I am perfectly willing to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the cloture motion if we can get an agreement on the process and some time agreements by which we can have these amendments considered. Now, I don't know why, but I have been told--and I will admit I haven't talked directly to the majority leader--that the Republicans are refusing to allow the Democratic tax amendment to either precede or immediately succeed the consideration of the Gramm amendment. They don't want them back to back. I don't know why. And if that is not accurate, I hope somebody will tell me. We have offered to have a limited amount of debate on the Gramm amendment, a limited amount of time on the Democratic amendment, and then let's have two votes back to back. We can do that this afternoon. I am prepared to have a vote, I would suggest, at 5 o'clock today. Let's have the debate on the Gramm amendment, the debate on the Democratic amendment, and then two votes, and we are out of here on taxes for a while. Then let's go to the drug amendment, let's go to the Durbin amendment. We can stack those votes. We can have all four of those votes tonight. But I bet you I won't hear that offer made by the other side. For some reason that isn't good enough. It was good enough for the Coverdell bill, but it is not good enough for the tobacco bill.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, since I retain the floor, let me just respond to my colleague. First of all, we are not going back to back. The last amendment prior to the Gramm amendment was a Gregg amendment. So instead of going Republican-Democratic, we went Republican- Republican. So that pattern was lost already.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the majority leader has just made my point probably better than I can. What he has said is that this offer to have two amendments, one Republican and one Democrat, both dealing with tax, under a time agreement, is objectionable to them. My point originally was the reason it is objectionable is because they don't want to get this legislation passed. They do not want to see closure to it. That is really what is behind all of this. This is not some concern about a tax amendment. This is concern about ultimately moving this legislation to a point where we can get completion. The reason the majority leader cannot get unanimous consent is not because it is not fair. It is because there are colleagues on his side who want to drag this out past the Fourth of July. They want to start using the clock. That is what this is about. You want a blow-by-blow account of the play-by-play action here? It is that. We are simply playing the clock. Because if you play it long enough, we run out of time and then, guess what, we do not pass a tobacco bill. We can play that. We can stay on this bill through June, if we want to. But I am telling you, this legislation ought to pass. It is about saving kids' lives. It is about making them healthy. It is about coming up with new tobacco policy, and we are prepared to stick to whatever it takes to see that we get that done. I don't understand why that would not be a fair proposal. I am disappointed that our Republican colleagues object to what is a reasonable proposal. When I used the reference ``king of the hill,'' I was simply saying you have two proposals, both pending, both being debated, and Republicans and Democrats both roll the dice. Let's see what the majority of Democrats and Republicans support with regard to the options presented to them. We have an amendment. They have an amendment. Maybe the leader is right. Maybe both amendments will pass or both amendments could fail. He thinks there is a majority support for the marriage penalty amendment. I think he is probably right. The question is, What is the amendment? The Gramm amendment goes way beyond marriage penalty. It goes way beyond it. Don't anyone be confused about that. This is not a marriage penalty amendment. You can find marriage penalty in it, but it goes beyond that, and he is prepared to spend $52 billion going beyond that. Now I understand he wants to pull it back some, but there is no question the majority of what the Gramm amendment would eat up would go to research, would go to kids, and would go to farmers. We know that. So we will have to wait until another day to have our debate and have a good opportunity to consider competing proposals. But we are prepared to do that. We will do it Monday next week, Tuesday, whenever. But we will be here. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Like the Senator from North Dakota, I have been around here a while, too, and this has been a first for me as well. It doesn't come often. To have the quarterbacks all on that side deciding the amendments to be offered is an interesting set of circumstances. The point the Senator from North Dakota makes is right on the mark. We are giving benefits to, in the name of the marriage penalty, married people who have no tax penalty, who actually benefit from being married. But the real irony, the real sad aspect of this, Mr. President, is we are doing it at the expense of those smoking-related illnesses in Medicare and Medicaid. We are doing it at the expense of tobacco farmers; we are doing it at the expense of children; we are doing it at the expense of research; we are doing it at the expense of a comprehensive attack on teenage smoking. That is the real irony here, and that is why a lot of us feel very mystified by this proposal and by the approach the Republicans are insisting on and troubled by the inequity, not only procedurally but in substance, with the amendments they are demanding that we consider. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. That seems to me to be a fair result. I don't know if they would stand for us telling them what their Republican amendment is going to be. But that is, in essence, what they are asking us to accept. We will tell you what Democratic amendment we will allow you to offer, and if you don't agree, you are the ones holding up progress. We can't accept that. Obviously, we can't accept that.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, at this time I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will agree to withholding filing of the motion so long as I don't lose my right to file the motion. If that takes retaining the floor, I intend to do so. But I will certainly allow the Senator from Arizona whatever time he may require to talk to the Senator from Texas. Mr. President, let me just say that is really the essence of this argument. Can we stop kids from smoking? Can we turn this around, or not? And can we find a way with which to address the concerns expressed to us by many of our colleagues? We believe we can address the marriage penalty for a whole lot less than $52 billion. But our objective is not to gut the bill. Our objective isn't to say we are going to use up all that money because we don't want to spend it on stopping kids from smoking; we don't want to spend it on research; we don't want to spend it on tobacco farmers; we don't want to recognize what has already been achieved in the State-by- State negotiations on this issue and the tremendous effort put forth by attorneys general all over the country in an effort to resolve this at the State level. The Federal Government didn't do that. For whatever reason, we didn't go to court. The States did. Now that the States have racked up their victories, and now that they are expecting some way to resolve this matter, we are saying: We are going to use that money, too; we are going to take the money that you have already won in court fairly and squarely against the tobacco companies, and we are going to spend it; we are going to spend it on a tax cut. So this gets interesting as we go on. We are saying we ought to respect the decisions made by the attorneys general, we ought to respect the decisions made by the committees of the Congress, and the Senate in particular, in recognition of the fact that we have to find new ways to target those who are most vulnerable to campaigns by tobacco companies today to get them to smoke. We think that is worth an American investment. We think it is worth an American investment to put some real effort into research on how we cure diseases that have been connected to smoking. We think it is important that we find ways with which to rid this country of the production of tobacco products and to encourage tobacco farmers to find other ways to make a living. That is what this is about. Mr. President, there is no choice. We can continue to talk. We can continue to find ways with which to obfuscate. But it really comes down to this: Do you want to pass a tobacco bill or not? We are getting a resounding ``no'' on the other side of the aisle. We are getting an absolute, emphatic ``no,'' exclamation point, ``we don't want a tobacco bill.'' We have come to a point that we do not have any choice. We must move this legislation forward and use the parliamentary and procedural methods available to any Senator to begin to curtail debate, recognizing that every Senator who still has a germane amendment would have the right to offer an amendment. But having been on this bill now for 2 weeks, and now recognizing the majority leader's frustration and impatience with our slow progress, his desire to move on to other bills, I, frankly, wish that we could do this together. I wish he and I could file this cloture motion. He has filed cloture a lot faster on virtually every other bill that has come to the floor than on this one. But I understand the difference in the initial position with regard to where we are on this legislation. So I wouldn't expect him necessarily to be enthusiastic about doing it. But we have to move on. We have to find a way with which to address this bill in a more consequential and productive way. That, in essence, is what it is we are attempting to do. We have a series of amendments. The Durbin amendment, which, in my view, is one of the final and very important pieces of legislation that we want to address on this side, a piece of legislation that would be designed to strengthen the so-called look-back, or the targets that we set out, to reduce teenage smoking--I don't think that is necessarily anything anybody ought to have trouble considering, or ultimately debating. We haven't even been able to debate that. We have had to wait. Mr. President, I say with all sincerity--I don't see the Senator from Arizona on the floor. He had asked that I postpone the filing of the cloture motion, and I have agreed to do so. But I am prepared to file it assuming that there is no other reason for him to ask for additional delay. Cloture Motion

Mr. DASCHLE. Without losing my right to the floor, I yield to the Senator from Arizona for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just say, my offer stands. We are prepared to negotiate some time agreement, some way with which to deal with these amendments. And if we can do so satisfactorily to both sides, I am prepared to ask unanimous consent to revoke the cloture motion for now. I will talk with the majority leader and we will see if we cannot resolve it. Perhaps this discussion, if nothing else, has moved us closer to that point. He did make a point, though, that I think has to be responded to, and that has to do with money which is being allocated here. He said, What is wrong with dealing with the marriage penalty? Shouldn't we address the inequity there? Let there be no mistake. We are prepared to address the inequity in the marriage penalty. Our amendment would do that. We are simply saying we don't want to do it at the expense of revoking the commitment made to the attorneys general, made to the States, made to tobacco farmers, made to children, made to the researchers--made in all of those ways that has set up this comprehensive tobacco policy which we hope to address over the course of the next 10 years. We don't have to do that. We don't have to destroy that. So there is nothing wrong with dealing with the marriage penalty. But to say we are going to do it at the expense of everything else is the problem Democrats find with the Gramm amendment. It also begs the question, what about the cost to Medicare and Medicaid from smoking- related illnesses? Should that not be addressed? Isn't that an inequity? The American taxpayers are paying huge--billions and billions of dollars, huge amounts of money to pay for the programs that we have set up to deal with health care; Medicare and Medicaid, the two most consequential. More and more billions of dollars are spent every year dealing with smoking-related illnesses. Isn't it important for us as a Nation and this Senate to recognize that and deal with it? What the Gramm amendment says is, ``No, it isn't. No, we are going to spend it on a tax cut. We think that is more important than anything else, over and above the commitment to the attorneys general, over and above the commitment to the farmers, over and above the commitment to the children, over and above the commitment to the Medicare and Medicaid.'' That is the problem we have. That is why there hasn't been an ability to find some common ground. So long as that becomes the only way with which to spend resources, we think there is a better way, a more prudent way, a more balanced way, and that is what this debate is about today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from North Dakota for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I only do so to note to my colleagues that this is the third Republican amendment now in a row. And I am hopeful we can continue to alternate back and forth, but I will not object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Does the majority leader yield?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.